Poll: Zero tolerance for DUI followed by manditory prison time measured in years

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is one of those topic that brings out the most holier-than-thou instincts in some people, to a degree I find just amazing.

I imagine just about every person (or at least every American) who drinks at all has driven under the influence of too much alcohol at some point. This is bad behavior, and appropriately illegal, but it's hardly the crime of the century. Statistically, distracted driving (e.g., while eating or talking on the phone) and tired driving are more dangerous than DUI. This is no excuse for driving drunk, but I think it's stupid to treat it as a hanging offense.

speak for yourself

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

So, if I come into your home someday armed with a gun. I hold your family hostage for hours, threatening to kill you all. Then, I leave without actually harming anyone.

I don't deserve a harsh punishment since all I did was put you in danger but I DID NOT HURT ANYONE.

You certainly don't, in your hypothetical, deserve to be punished the same as someone who did actually shoot and/or kill the family members.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Yea, you're right, I concede. Everyone that drinks and drives does exactly that.

Think with logic here. Like DonVito said, driving is a deadly risk. There are a LOT of people out there who are in no condition to drive, be they tired, angry, distracted, drunk, high, etc. Yes, the risk is much higher if you're drunk, but anytime you drive, ANYONE is capable of getting in an accident and killing someone. If you drink and drive, you get punished. The punishments today are fine, what you guys think is "acceptable punishment" is ludicrous. Its like saying people that get in a fight should go to jail for years. After all, you never know when a fight will escalate to a deadly level. Its possible.

Go ahead, rip my analogy, but you know I'm right and are just too "big" a person to admit it. Drinking and driving is wrong, but if you get caught and you didn't hurt anyone, you dont deserve excessive jail, and thats that.

I don't agree with the jail time simply because I don't think that will do a lot of good and will just cost more taxes. Instead, I think their car should be impounded and sold. Money goes to charity or road construction. Also, the person loses his/her license for at least one year, minimum.

 

[Deeko]

Oh really??? A year licence suspension???? We should raise the penalties to that level.

Oh wait, thats where they already are. Thank you for agreeing with me. :roll:

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Deeko
I already said no, there isn't. Its a mistake people make.

Okay, so what part of "Your analogy got taken out behind the woodshed and violated six ways from Sunday" are you disagreeing with?

- M4H

Because, just because you can come up with reasons to own a gun(tho its HARDLY a necessity), doesn't mean you can't kill people with it. Very easily. Thats what guns are designed to do. End life. Does that mean if you have a gun you're gonna kill someone? Of course not. Just like just because you got one DUI does not mean you killed someone.

Ok, I'll attempt to spell it out for you.

With a gun... if you kill someone with a gun, you made a conscious decision to shoot that person with the intent to harm him/her. There's no "it was a mistake" involved.

Now, with driving while drunk, you are saying, "I know I shouldn't be driving, but I'm too selfish to care. If I accidentily kill someone because I'm too drunk to control my vehicle properly, oh well, it's a mistake."

Once more. *sigh*. I am talking about people who don't hurt anyone. My keys are wearing out from typing this sentence, but if you don't hurt someone, you shouldn't be punished like those who have.

I was driving (while drunk, of course) past that same school again, doing 80 in a 20 with no seatbelt and hanging my Uzi out of the driver's-side window. My finger slipped and hit the trigger and I fired off a few errant shots across the playground. In my haste to pull the gun back inside I swerved across the sidewalk where the pre-K kids were, but they got out of the way in time. I cut down a mailbox though.

It was all a mistake. Why are there men in black suits chasing me now?

- M4H

Yea, you're right, I concede. Everyone that drinks and drives does exactly that.

Think with logic here. Like DonVito said, driving is a deadly risk. There are a LOT of people out there who are in no condition to drive, be they tired, angry, distracted, drunk, high, etc. Yes, the risk is much higher if you're drunk, but anytime you drive, ANYONE is capable of getting in an accident and killing someone. If you drink and drive, you get punished. The punishments today are fine, what you guys think is "acceptable punishment" is ludicrous. Its like saying people that get in a fight should go to jail for years. After all, you never know when a fight will escalate to a deadly level. Its possible.

Go ahead, rip my analogy, but you know I'm right and are just too "big" a person to admit it. Drinking and driving is wrong, but if you get caught and you didn't hurt anyone, you dont deserve excessive jail, and thats my opinion.

Edited for clarity. You've got your opinion, I've got mine. Which is that anyone stupid enough to make the voluntary choice of driving under the influence needs a wake up call in the form of a human booster shot from a big man named Molly.

- M4H

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Oh really??? A year licence suspension???? We should raise the penalties to that level.

Oh wait, thats where they already are. Thank you for agreeing with me. :roll:

I know several people that have gotten DUIs and had their licenses back within 3 months. They are NOT at a one year minimum in all states.

Also, none of them had their car taken from them.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

I don't agree with the jail time simply because I don't think that will do a lot of good and will just cost more taxes. Instead, I think their car should be impounded and sold. Money goes to charity or road construction. Also, the person loses his/her license for at least one year, minimum.

Okay, let's open up the debate a little.

In this thread, the OP says he drove 2200 miles in 35 hours, with no sleep. By your logic, shouldn't he lose his vehicle and license? I'd submit that driving 35 hours without rest is MUCH more dangerous than driving with a .08% BAC, and the research supports my position.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Deeko
Oh really??? A year licence suspension???? We should raise the penalties to that level.

Oh wait, thats where they already are. Thank you for agreeing with me. :roll:

I know several people that have gotten DUIs and had their licenses back within 3 months. They are NOT at a one year minimum in all states.

Also, none of them had their car taken from them.

Well fine. Maybe your state needs stricter penalties. I'm talking about my own.

How is taking the car away different from fines? Fines here in PA for first offense range from $500-$5000. Its just monetary punishment.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Deeko
Oh really??? A year licence suspension???? We should raise the penalties to that level.

Oh wait, thats where they already are. Thank you for agreeing with me. :roll:

I know several people that have gotten DUIs and had their licenses back within 3 months. They are NOT at a one year minimum in all states.

Also, none of them had their car taken from them.

Well fine. Maybe your state needs stricter penalties. I'm talking about my own.

How is taking the car away different from fines? Fines here in PA for first offense range from $500-$5000. Its just monetary punishment.

Well, how about the car is taken until the offender pays either the blue book value of the car or $5,000, whichever is greater?

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: DAGTA

I don't agree with the jail time simply because I don't think that will do a lot of good and will just cost more taxes. Instead, I think their car should be impounded and sold. Money goes to charity or road construction. Also, the person loses his/her license for at least one year, minimum.

Okay, let's open up the debate a little.

In this thread, the OP says he drove 2200 miles in 35 hours, with no sleep. By your logic, shouldn't he lose his vehicle and license? I'd submit that driving 35 hours without rest is MUCH more dangerous than driving with a .08% BAC, and the research supports my position.

I agree that driving when too tired is dangerous. The problem is: how do you measure that? BAC can be measured with a machine.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Deeko
Oh really??? A year licence suspension???? We should raise the penalties to that level.

Oh wait, thats where they already are. Thank you for agreeing with me. :roll:

I know several people that have gotten DUIs and had their licenses back within 3 months. They are NOT at a one year minimum in all states.

Also, none of them had their car taken from them.

Well fine. Maybe your state needs stricter penalties. I'm talking about my own.

How is taking the car away different from fines? Fines here in PA for first offense range from $500-$5000. Its just monetary punishment.

Well, how about the care is taken until the offender pays either the blue book value of the car or $5,000, whichever is greater?

Because thats stupid, thats punishing someone more for having a nicer car. Someone who gets in a DUI in a 1988 Civic is no less at fault than a person driving a 2005 Audi.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You suck at making polls.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: DAGTA

I don't agree with the jail time simply because I don't think that will do a lot of good and will just cost more taxes. Instead, I think their car should be impounded and sold. Money goes to charity or road construction. Also, the person loses his/her license for at least one year, minimum.

Okay, let's open up the debate a little.

In this thread, the OP says he drove 2200 miles in 35 hours, with no sleep. By your logic, shouldn't he lose his vehicle and license? I'd submit that driving 35 hours without rest is MUCH more dangerous than driving with a .08% BAC, and the research supports my position.

I agree that driving when too tired is dangerous. The problem is: how do you measure that? BAC can be measured with a machine.

Someone suffering from sleep deprivation can fail a field sobriety test faster than a Brit after happy hour.

- M4H

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

I agree that driving when too tired is dangerous. The problem is: how do you measure that? BAC can be measured with a machine.

My point is just that: singling out DUI as a cause of accidents, and hammering first-time drunk drivers, is, IMO, arbitrary, and doesn't particularly protect the public.

The morons who drive to work while putting on makeup, talking on the phone, and eating McGriddles would be exempt from the sanction, even if they are more dangerous than the guy with a .08%. For that matter, it's quite likely a person driving under the influence of ecstasy, LSD, and/or heroin will escape similar penalties, because the police will never detect their intoxication.

IMO the DUI penalties and punishable BAC have already been pushed to the outer boundaries of sanity. Push them further if you want, but don't kid yourself that you're protecting the public by doing so.

I am NOT a bleeding heart - I have prosecuted dozens of offenders, and indeed sent one guy to prison for life. I'm not interested in ruining someone's life because they picked up one DUI.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Someone suffering from sleep deprivation can fail a field sobriety test faster than a Brit after happy hour.

- M4H

That's frequently not the case, and even if they fail, tired driving isn't criminal. The prosecutor has to show they are impaired by drugs or alcohol. Even if they fail a FST completely, they haven't committed any crime.

 

[DAGTA]

I'm all for banning cell phone usage while driving, too.

 

[Deeko]

I'll tell you guys what.

Crawl out of this alive and tell me you'll drink and drive again:
http://www.simpsons-quotes.com/C3/car/car.html

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Someone suffering from sleep deprivation can fail a field sobriety test faster than a Brit after happy hour.

- M4H

That's frequently not the case, and even if they fail, tired driving isn't criminal. The prosecutor has to show they are impaired by drugs or alcohol. Even if they fail a FST completely, they haven't committed any crime.

That'll get you a "Careless" or "Unsafe Operation" up here. Maybe the States needs to take a hint from Socialist Canada.

- M4H

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
/props up lawnchair
/taps the keg
/waits for alkemyst to come in and defend his Right As An American to drive drunk

- M4H

Hey man, pull off at the next exit..the bar is on 23rd and Broadway.

 

[clamum]

I don't know, if the death penalty or life in prison doesn't stop people from committing murder, I doubt this would be an effective detterent to DUIs.

For first offenses, a harsh sentence is IMO ridiculous. People make mistakes. Subsequent offenses should have harsher penalties though.

 

[SuperTool]

Mandatory sentencing is a stupid idea. Especially for DUI.
Because there are degrees to it. If you had a beer at a restaurant and maybe have a slight buzz, that's one thing. If you had five shots of Golschlager that's another thing. If you are driving nice and slow just to get home that's one thing. If you are drunk and going 100 wrong way hitting someone head on, that's another thing. So there has to be variability in sentencing to correspond to the crime.

 

[Apathetic]

Originally posted by: Deeko
ok, fine, you've got me ups.

I got a DUI in July. It was a first time offense. I did not hurt anyone but my own car. Was I extremely lucky? Yes. But you know what? I'd never done it before, and I will never do it again, so spare me your bullsh!t "corrections". To say I should be in jail for YEARS is absolutely ridiclous.

Don't try to tell me I don't understand the perils because I got off easy. Don't pull the "I know people who were killed by drunk drivers". Yea, so do I. I've also gone through the PERSONAL hell that is getting a DUI, I'm not gonna bother explaining it, cuz you have NO idea what its like. You don't know the amount of mental anguish i put myself through, or the amount I was given once I got out.

I got lucky. Had I hurt someone else, yes, I should be in jail, but I didn't, therefore, I learned my lesson and won't do it again. If someone shoots a gun in the air on new years(a tradition in the fvcked up city I'm from), should they receive the same punishment as if they'd actually shot someone?

I can see giving someone a bit break the first time as long as they didn't hurt anyone (maybe loose their license for 90-120 days or so). Chalk it up to being young and stupid. However, if someone has a subsequent DUI conviction, I think we can safely assume they didn't learn their lesson and should either a) loose their license for several years (if nobody was hurt) or b) be sent to prison for a VERY long time (if they injured someone).

Dave

 

[Modeps]

I'm getting into the thread too late, but I'll just say this... A beer or two under my belt is not going to affect my performance AT ALL.

 

[rh71]

2 months jailtime minimum if found above the legal limit (there's no way to enforce it for lightweights). There's no excuse for voluntarily endangering everyone else's lives.

 

[Apathetic]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Mandatory sentencing is a stupid idea. Especially for DUI.
Because there are degrees to it. If you had a beer at a restaurant and maybe have a slight buzz, that's one thing. If you had five shots of Golschlager that's another thing. If you are driving nice and slow just to get home that's one thing. If you are drunk and going 100 wrong way hitting someone head on, that's another thing. So there has to be variability in sentencing to correspond to the crime.

Maybe the mandatory sentancing should be based on your blood/alcohol level when you are arrested so if you're barely over the sentence is light but if you're way over the sentence is rather nasty.

Dave